Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 7
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Ciani, O. and Taylor, R. S. 2013. SURROGATE, FRIEND OR FOE? THE NEED FOR CASE STUDIES OF THE USE OF SURROGATE OUTCOMES IN COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSES. Health Economics, Vol. 22, Issue. 2, p. 251.


    Baik, SeiHyun Chacra, Antônio Roberto Yuxiu, Li White, Jeremy Güler, Serdar and Latif, Zafar A. 2010. Conducting cost-effectiveness analyses of type 2 diabetes in low- and middle-income countries: can locally generated observational study data overcome methodological limitations?. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, Vol. 88, p. S17.


    Toumi, Mondher Jarosławski, Szymon Sawada, Toyohiro and Kornfeld, Åsa 2016. The Use of Surrogate and Patient-Relevant Endpoints in Outcomes-Based Market Access Agreements. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy,


    Félix, Jorge Aragão, Filipa Almeida, João M Calado, Frederico JM Ferreira, Diana Parreira, António BS Rodrigues, Ricardo and Rijo, João FR 2013. Time-dependent endpoints as predictors of overall survival in multiple myeloma. BMC Cancer, Vol. 13, Issue. 1,


    Ciani, Oriana Davis, Sarah Tappenden, Paul Garside, Ruth Stein, Ken Cantrell, Anna Saad, Everardo D. Buyse, Marc and Taylor, Rod S. 2014. VALIDATION OF SURROGATE ENDPOINTS IN ADVANCED SOLID TUMORS: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF STATISTICAL METHODS, RESULTS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY MAKERS. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Vol. 30, Issue. 03, p. 312.


    Rocchi, Angela Khoudigian, Shoghag Hopkins, Rob and Goeree, Ron 2013. Surrogate outcomes: experiences at the Common Drug Review. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, Vol. 11, Issue. 1, p. 31.


    Godman, Brian Finlayson, Alexander E Cheema, Parneet K Zebedin-Brandl, Eva Gutiérrez-Ibarluzea, Inaki Jones, Jan Malmström, Rickard E Asola, Elina Baumgärtel, Christoph Bennie, Marion Bishop, Iain Bucsics, Anna Campbell, Stephen Diogene, Eduardo Ferrario, Alessandra Fürst, Jurij Garuoliene, Kristina Gomes, Miguel Harris, Katharine Haycox, Alan Herholz, Harald Hviding, Krystyna Jan, Saira Kalaba, Marija Kvalheim, Christina Laius, Ott Lööv, Sven-Ake Malinowska, Kamila Martin, Andrew McCullagh, Laura Nilsson, Fredrik Paterson, Ken Schwabe, Ulrich Selke, Gisbert Sermet, Catherine Simoens, Steven Tomek, Dominik Vlahovic-Palcevski, Vera Voncina, Luka Wladysiuk, Magdalena van Woerkom, Menno Wong-Rieger, Durhane Zara, Corrine Ali, Raghib and Gustafsson, Lars L 2013. Personalizing health care: feasibility and future implications. BMC Medicine, Vol. 11, Issue. 1,


    ×
  • International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, Volume 25, Issue 3
  • July 2009, pp. 315-322

Surrogate outcomes in health technology assessment: An international comparison

  • Marcial Velasco Garrido (a1) and Sandra Mangiapane (a2)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462309990213
  • Published online: 01 July 2009
Abstract

Objectives: Our aim was to review the recommendations given by health technology assessment (HTA) institutions in their methodological guidelines concerning the use of surrogate outcomes in their assessments. In a second step, we aimed at quantifying the role surrogate parameters take in assessment reports.

Methods: We analyzed methodological papers and guidelines from HTA agencies with International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment membership as well as from institutions related to pharmaceutical regulation (i.e., reimbursement, pricing). We analyzed the use of surrogate outcomes in a sample of HTA reports randomly drawn from the HTA database. We checked methods, results (including evidence tables), and conclusions sections and extracted the outcomes reported. We report descriptive statistics on the presence of surrogate outcomes in the reports.

Results: We identified thirty-four methodological guidelines, twenty of them addressing the issue of outcome parameter choice and the problematic of surrogate outcomes. Overall HTA agencies call on caution regarding the reliance on surrogate outcomes. None of the agencies has provided a list or catalog of acceptable and validated surrogate outcomes. We extracted the outcome parameter of 140 HTA reports. Only around half of the reports determined the outcomes for the assessment prospectively. Surrogate outcomes had been used in 62 percent of the reports. However, only 3.6 percent were based upon surrogate outcomes exclusively. All of them assessed diagnostic or screening technologies and the surrogate outcomes were predominantly test characteristics.

Conclusions: HTA institutions seem to agree on a cautious approach to the use of surrogate outcomes in technology assessment. Thorough assessment of health technologies should not rely exclusively on surrogate outcomes.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

3.Biomarkers Definition Working Group. Biomarkers and surrogate end points: Preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;69:8995.

4.HC Bucher , GH Guyatt , DJ Cook , A Holbrook , FA McAlister . Users' guides to the medical literature: XIX. Applying clinical trial results. A. How to use an article measuring the effect of an intervention on surrogate end points. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1999;282:771778.

7.Committee of Principal Investigators. A co-operative trial in the primary prevention of ischaemic heart disease using clofibrate: Report from the Committee of Principal Investigators. Br Heart J. 1978;40:10691118.

9.J Dretzke , C Cummins , J Sandercock , A Fry-Smith , Barrett T, Burls A. Autoantibody testing in children with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes mellitus. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:1204.

11.TR Fleming , DL de Mets . Surrogate end points in clinical trials: Are we being misled? Ann Intern Med. 1996;125:605613.

13.DG Fryback , JR Thornbury . The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:8894.

22.MERIT-HF Study Group. Effect of metoprolol CR/XL in chronic heart failure: Metoprolol CR/XL randomized intervention trial in congestive heart failure. (MERIT-HF). Lancet. 1999;353:20012007.

29.BM Psaty , NS Weiss , CD Furberg , Surrogate end points, health outcomes and the drug-approval process for the treatment of risk factors for cardiovascular disease. JAMA. 1999;282:786790.

31.J Shepherd , J Jones , D Hartwell , Interferon alfa (pegylated and nonpegylated) and ribavirin for the treatment of mild chronic hepatitis C – a systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:1224.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary Materials

Velasco Supplementary Material
Tables.doc

 Unknown (183 KB)
183 KB